Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

alec.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#151

Post by ineedasername »

flywheel wrote: post #48
EE84M3i wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "deprecated", you mean as in "discontinued" right? Not just like, discouraged?

Whoever the first developer was that used "deprecated" got it kind of wrong, the word should have been "depreciated". Deprecate: "express disapproval of." Depreciate: "diminish in value over a period of time." I kind of cringe when other developers say "deprecated". Edit: Versioning and not removing APIs is kind of the way to go, so you don't break client apps that possibly can't be updated easily or at all. "Depreci…

If you deconstruct the original latin that forms the word, it's literal translation is something like "ask to go away"

de == away

prek == ask

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#152

Post by Shared404 »

jidiculous wrote: post #148
Shared404 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still mid-setting up a blog, but I'll keep that in mind once I've got it up and running. I'm afraid it probably wouldn't be that interesting to HN'ers though, because this is where I found most of them.

I'm pretty new to HN so I'd really find that post interesting – having them listed in one place would be useful.

If you want, you can shoot me an email and I'll send a link to a page where I have them listed already. Not a blog post, and not much info about them, but I have a list.

I just don't have a domain yet so I don't really want to go super public.

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#153

Post by jidiculous »

Shared404 wrote: post #152
jidiculous wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty new to HN so I'd really find that post interesting – having them listed in one place would be useful.

If you want, you can shoot me an email and I'll send a link to a page where I have them listed already. Not a blog post, and not much info about them, but I have a list. I just don't have a domain yet so I don't really want to go super public.

Sure thing, I've just emailed you.

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#154

Post by mbrookes »

neilduncan wrote: post #14

I live two towns over from Dorking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorking

Also in the immediate vicinity. Who knew there were so many of us! (And only those who have seen this on a Sunday & bothered to comment.)

Perhaps a mini meet-up is in order? :)

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#155

Post by roochkeez »

jjeaff wrote: post #135
uniqueid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever spent three minutes opening useless links from Google's Search results, only to realize they dropped the keyword you searched? That seems quite common now, especially with programming keywords, which are often obscure. Remember Google Code Search, and Google (Usenet) Groups? Back then, Google cared about this stuff. Now they seem only to want to show you furniture ads, or get you to use their Zoom knockoff, etc.…

This is also very common with DDG. And the strange thing is that many times, DDG will even ignore if you are using parenthesis. The parenthesis seem to add weight but I will still get tons of results that don't contain the required words at all.

Never seen this happen with DDG. Required words should be in quotes, not parenthesis.

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#156

Post by J0_k3r »

joe-collins wrote: post #131
uniqueid wrote: post #24

Last week I blocked every * .google.* domain on my network except "youtube-ui.l.google.com". Google Search: (1) ask a natural language question (since actual search is hobbled) (2) get unrelated garbage and ads back (3) blame yourself for "not being technical enough" to understand why the results aren't actually garbage. Google Search has deteriorated to the point that so far I haven't missed it at all .

I've been slowly degoogling myself this year. For ~80% of my search, DDG has been entirely adequate. I do miss some of Big G's cards, and their Maps is vastly superior to DDG's Apple Maps integration, even despite GMap's advertising. DDG's solution is wild, really: they use Apple for static-image-only maps with no real contextual interface, only a sidebar for search results. If you want directions , you must search f…

use OSM it's much better anyway

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#157

Post by wglb »

flywheel wrote: post #47

Prediction: Using the methods of "dorking", this is the only page on the internet among 10 million+ results that is calling this "dorking".

Long time reference. See for example https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS672US689&hl=en...

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#158

Post by TallGuyShort »

flywheel wrote: post #77
efreak wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, depreciated is incorrect. Removal has already happened, the "period of time" is already over.

Removing APIs is not a great practice though. Look at AWS, they version their APIs, they don't just remove them, and removing them should be unnecessary if your underlying tech isn't brittle and badly written. "Depreciated" is a far better term to use, with a far better outcome in my opinion. Companies that remove old versions of APIs and break existing client apps (that possibly can't be udpated) really suck.

Right, you version APIs and have a policy of deprecated APIs being removed in the next version. Or you can just copy and paste a comment calling people shitheads for politely disagreeing with you. Your call.

Re: Dorking: the use of search engines to find very specific data

#159

Post by mitchdoogle »

harha wrote: post #66

I think it would be useful to be able to explicitly search around knowledge graph entities or site topics, e.g. a programming language, a city, a season, without having that single/specific term. So a search including all sites related to an entity, say Munich or python along with the terms the user is searching because a page might then not specifically include the entity in its keywords or the text on the site or h…

I would just like to create my own groups. As another user said, tagging would probably be gamed by SEO companies, but if people could use their own groupings, that problem wouldn't occur. Their could even be curated lists out there of specific sites that fall within a general category. At the least, I'd like to be able to block sites from ever appearing in my results. I've used add-ons for that which work pretty well, but it should be built-in in my opinion
Post reply on HN